the Devil was a lyer from the beginning and this Death say you was the second death and also you confess tâ—at Adam and all his Lines did not dye the second Death so that if your opinion be true the Devil spake true and not God see your self I tremble to write so of the worthy name of God as your ignorant blasphemous opinion leads me to write in reference to discover your absurdities but you say That although God threatned it yet he did not peremptorily resolve it but sent Christ To which I answer as beforesaid that is but to make the Devils words true for God had said and decreed they should dye but the Devil perswaded them to believe a lye that they should not dye that the Devil might be a true Prophet say you God sent Christ that they might not dye and as to the case of Nineveh and Hezekiah I have already answered And again whereas you would have me say Either Christ brought not justification of life by his obedience or else conclude Adam brought evernal condemnation by disobedience or say there is no sence in the Apostles arguing Rom. 5.18 To which I answer there is good reason in the Apostles reasoning and yet his words imply not that which you would infer from them for I have already proved that the condemnation there mentioned is but to the dust viz. the first death Adams sin caused God to judge and condemn him and his posterity to the dust but in a short word take this as the Apostles reasoning from Rom. 5 18. that as by the offence of the first Adam judged or condemned all to the dust and so brought them all under the power of the Grave to have lain there eternally had not mercy been provided so by the righteousness of the Second Adam the free gift came upon all men to deliver or justifie them from that power of Death viz. the sting thereof so that it might be said in the promise as in the person of Christ O Death I will be thy death and thus the free gift came upon all men to justification of life that as in or by Adam all dyed even so in or by Christ all are made alive viz. raised from the dead it being done in Gods account from the foundation of the world so then the first Adam by his sin made all men liable to the power of the first death so that the sting of death did as we may say attach them but mercy through the Righteousness of Christ stepped in and jus tified man from that attachment and destroyed the power of it and brought life and immortality to light for although God did peremptorily Decree that Adam should go to the dust for that sin Dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return yet he did not decree either in his threatning or in his sentence that he should lye there eternally yet the sting of Death viz. the power of the Grave would have seized on or surprized him had not mercy in the Promise justified man from it and thus the free gift came upon all men to justification of life I might say much more to it but I pass to that of Jude where you say They were of old ordained to Condemnation To which I answer and say that it is true that God of old did in his Decree ordain and appoint some to condemnation It is not denied that God did of old ordain ungodly men to condemnation although it be denied that God of old did ordain men to be ungodly that thereby they might come to condemnation namely such as did refuse the grace of Salvation in the tenderness of it and put away eternal life and glory and turn the grace of God into wantonness and such were they that Jude speaks of there are certain men crept in saith he who of old were ordained to this condemnation and then tels us what disposed men they are and that is saith he ungodly men turning the grace of God mark that to wantonness I could shew you what is meant by the word this Condemnation but I pass And whereas you say That Children might be made liable in Adam to eternal Death Answer If you mean eternal Death as before promised that is to lye eternally in the Grave under the sting oâ— Death as beforesaid then we differ not but if by Eternal Death you mean â—he second Death they could not be liable to that by the sin in Paradice because the punishment of the second Death must pre-suppos a second Life that is a person must be said to be twice alive before he can be said to be twice dead or in danger to be twice dead and therefore the Lord sheweth that as there was a first Death that all mâ—n must taste of for that sin in Paradice so there is a lake of fire and brimstone the which God calls the second Death and where ever the word second is used it presupposeth a first otherwise there cannot be a second but the Death spoken in Genesis could not be the second unless there had been a Death proposed before it the which was not for by one man sin entred into the world and death mark that by sin so then sin brought death into the world and secondly in Christ is hid our second life the which we loose by loosing of him and Christ and that life in him which is opposed to the second death was never ours before the Fall and I could give many sound Reasons to prove both these but I pass it may be needless because no man upon due consideration can deny it and so pass But before I shall examine or try your lawful Ministry I shall through Gods assistance unfold unto you the mystery contained in the Ninth Chapter to the Romans partly because many poor Souls stand as it were amazed to know what God means in his Word for say they God sometimes saith He would have all men come to Repentance and swears he desires not the death of him that dyes but rather that they would return and live and therefore exhorted men to strive to enter in at the strait gate and to be diligent to make their calling and election sure and to beware lest any fail of the grace of God but so to run that they may obtain and the like and yet saith It is not in him that willeth or runneth but hated Esau before he was born as some say and makes persons vessels of dishonour from a Decree before they were born or had done good or evil in a word elect some and reprobate others before born and yet saith he would not their death but would have them turn and yet appoints them to run on in evill these and many more of this nature do persons conclude is in God and stâ—â—â— when they are brought in question as touching this their conceit they fly to the Ninth of the Romans as a refuge the which thorow Gods help I shall shew will
then the shadow will flie away upon that account Christ being become our life or when we do enjoy eternall life The tree of life not a type of Christ or Eternal life onely a maintenance of a natural life in Paradice Adam was not Spiritual in his innocency but shall be in the time of the Resurrection a Spiritual body like Christ mark that the shadow viz. the tree of life must flie away my meaning is there must not be use made of him the which there will be at that time when we live Eternally as the Scripture hath said and if not then Christ would not restore all things to his people that was lost by Adam both these the Scripture will prove First That all things shall be restored unless the Serpent and disobedient man and also that we shall eat of the tree of life in future the which is no alligory but shall be fulfilled the which sheweth that the tree of life is not a type of Eternal life because they shall be enjoyed together the which is not proper in types And so I pass onely saying thus Whereas you charge me with agreeing with Papists that you do agree with them in many things is plain witness Baby-Baptism nay you are a branch of that root and your standing in your Ministry is from thence but more of that anon Secondly you urgean Argument from Rom. 5.16 Judgment came by one viz. Adam to condemnation and that Condemnation is not onely the first death but also Condemnation in hell say you Answer and first the Text will not imply what you say but readeth it Condemnation and so forth and the word Condemnation doth in Scripture mean onely the first death in some places were it is used as in the Gospel Luk. 23.40 where our Saviour was condemned to die or in the Condemnation one of the Malefactours reviled him the answer of the other which was penitent was on this wise doest thou not fear God seeing thou art in the same Condemnation that is the same Condemnation that Christ was in the which I think no sober man will think it was a damnation into hell viz. the second death but he was in a condemnation to a death the which was the first death equivolent with Adams death for that sin in Paradise and the same that is spoken of in Rom. 15.18 agreeing with Luk 23. These words used in both places viz. Luk. 23.40 Rom. 5.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adverb 40. Luke reads it thus Condemnation the very same word with the Apostle Rom. 5.18 and yet as I have said no sober man will think that the condemnation spoken by Luke is a condemnation to the second death and as the word is the same in our language that Paul speaketh Rom. 5.18 with Luk. 23.40 So it is the very same in the Greek Testament and also in the Latine see Luk 23.40 Rom 5.18 the Greek in both places readeth it Krima or Katakrima adverb and in the Latine see Luk. 23.40 Damnatione and Rom. 5.18 Condemnationem adverb it is one and the same word so that you may as well say that Christ was in the condemnation of the second death as say that Adam was in condemnation of the second death for that sin in Paradise the words being one and the same But now I shall clearly shew you that the condemnation spoken of in Rom. 5.18 is not a condemnation to the second death the Argument to prove it is thus If that death that entred in to the world by Adams sin passed upon all and reigned from Adam to Moses then it could not be the second death But that death which entred into the world by Adams sin passed upon all and reigned from Adam to Moses Ergo that death could not be the second death there is only the sequel of the Major that may be questioned the which I thus prove if there were many that lived between Adam and Moses which the second death passed not upon nor reigned over then it could not be the second death that entred into the world and passed upon all The second death passed not upon many that lived between Adam and Moses but that death that entred into the world by Adams sin passed upon all which sheweth it was not the second death and reigned over them as beforesaid But there was many that lived between Adam and Moses that the second death pâ—ssed not upon not reigned over Ergo that death which entred into the world as before said was not the second death The Minor of this Argument is clear that there were many that lived between Adam and Moses that the second death had no power of that is it passed not upon or reigned over them as Abraham Isaac and Jacob and Lot and Noah and several others the which clearly sheweth that the death that entred into the world by Adams sin was not the second but the first death and that passed upon all even Abraham Isaac and Jacob and the rest they all dyed the first death as they were dust so to dust they did return and so I pass to the next thing considerable the which is You would prove if ye could That the fleshly or mortal part of man begetteth the immortal part or Spiritual Soul of man and withal refer me to several Authors to prove it and yet when you have all done you lay down the Cudgels as I may say before you have struck a stroak saying but let us not look for the Souls Parentage on earth But if the Spiritual Soul be begotten by our Parents then it is easie to finde our Souls Parentage on earth And whereas we are said to be all of the off-spring of God it respecteth the Spiritual Soul for God is the Father of Spirits no man was yet called the Father of Spirits we have Fathers of our flesh as saith the Apostle which chastiseth us and we are in subjection unto them shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of Spirits There is Fathers of flesh and Fathers of Spirits opposed one to another but man is not any where called the Father of Spirits And whereas you ask me Whether Man do not beget as compleat a creature as the Beasts do in their kinde did not Adam beget a son in his own likeness meaning in sin say you To which I answer and first That man doth begot a perfect creature and yet but mortal for you your selves have granted it for first say you by his sins he became mortal saying a mortal stomack could not feed upon immortal food citing Doct Halls contemplations and say you Adam begat a son in his own likeness to the which I say it was a poor mortal creature for if Adam had begot the a Spiritual Soul which is immortal he had begat son partly in the likeness of God but that man and beast probigate alike and have one breath considered barely as man read
his Holy Spirit and he that hath done this for us will not now destroy us but the Apostle answering them on this wise as if he should have said it is true he hath Baptised you with his Spirit according to his promise and the visable gifts doth appear yet take heed of sin for otherwise God will destroy you for be not ignorant of this that our fathers were Baptised as well as you and with the same Spirit for the Rock that followed them was Christ yet God was displeased with them and destroyed them and these things was saith the Apostle for your example and admonition but now if this had been but a water baptisme that the Apostle saith our fathers were Baptized withal The Apostle sheweth the Corinths that the Fathers were Baptised with the Spirit as well as they and yet God destroyed them that so the Corinths might not boast of their gifts and take liberty to sin least they also were destroyed then the Corinths might have made this reply and said it is true all the Baptism or the washing with water in the Law was but appertaining unto the flesh and also we know Symon Magus was Baptized with water and yet cast away but we have been Baptised with the Spirit and therefore a beloved people and God will not cast us of and upon this account the Apostle endeavoureth to inform them that the Fathers were Baptised with the Spirit for Christ was with the Church in the wilderness and also lead them sometimes going before them sometimes followed them between the Egyptian and the Camp of Israel in the red Sea and thus Gods Spiritual presence was manifested unto them both in the Cloud and in the Sea in the Cloud by being a light to lead them and keeping the Egyptians from them and in the Sea by making the waters a wall to them so as that they were not wet thereby But if it should be objected out of the 77. Psal 16 17. The waters saw God and the depts were troubled the Clouds poured out water the skies sent forth a sound the voice of the thunders were in the Heavens I say This is nothing to that which is mentioned in the Epistle to the Corinths neither was that Cloud there spoken of the Clouds mentioned in the seventy seven Psalm And again whereas you ask me what I think of sprinkling of Bloud in the time of the Law so often mentioned was it not a type say you of the blood of sprinkling Heb. 12.24 To which I answer It may borrow that terme the blood of sprinkling from that of springling in the Law or it may be called the blood of sprinkling because the efficacy of it was to be dispersed abroad to many by speaking better things for them than the blood of Abel but this maketh nothing for your purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is aspersionis viz. sprinkling that Baptizo is to sprinkle as well as to dip for that word in the twelfth of Hebrews will not help you either in the word itself or the consequence of it And whereas you ask me why sprinkling on Infants may not signify Christs blood shed for them Answer because in the first place God never did appoint Infants to be sprinkled in the time of the Gospel or elsewhere to signify Christs blood shed for them Secondly Because Baptism is not barely a signification of Christs blood shed but also of his burial and Resurrection the which cannot be signified by sprinkling in sprinkling in the time of the Law there was a cleansing but in part viz. the flesh and but for a time namely one year for there was a remembrance of sin every year but now out cleansing is of another nature not in part but by one offering perfected for ever such as are sanctified and therefore that which signifieth that great work is not a little water but much water whereby persons must be thorowly washed and therefore the water in Baptism is compared to the waters of Noah 1 Pet. 3 20 21. the which I think no wise man will think was very little but that Baptism doth signifie burial as well as Christs death see the words of the Apostle Rom. 6.4 in these words Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into his death That like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in nenness of life and as saith the Apostle to the Corinths If the dead rise not Why are we Baptised for dead that is as if he should say why are we then Baptized to signifie a Resurrection from the dead And again Whereas you say Peter was for a kinde of plounging John 13. till better Catichised by our Saviour To which I answer and say from thence it is evident that it was the onely practice in Baptism to wash or plounge the whole man in water Peters words spoken in John 13 maketh much for total washing in Baptism and no whit against it because Peter was ignorant of washing in part and cryeth out not onely my feet but my hands and my head but however that was not an ordinance of Baptism as aforesaid that Christ taught his disciples but it was an ordinanee which Christ instituted to wash the feet of those that were Baptised as aforesaid and therefore this maketh much against you and will plainlr teach you that it was a total washing or plounging that was Christs and his disciples practice in Baptism but Peter wanted instruction about that Ordinance of washing the Disciples feet and because I am occasioned to speak as to that Ordinance from the precedent discourse But the common scandal the which some wicked men lay upon us in that ordinance we call God to witness we abhor I shall briefly say I would advise every man as they would give an account with joy and not with grief in the dreadful day of judgement to take heed how they speak reproachfully or slâ—tely of any Ordinance that Christ hath instituted as some have done although it may seem strange to them because Christ will look upon them as his enemies and if so his fury will burn out against them like a devouring fire And that the washing of Disciples feet is an Ordinance of Christ read John 13 14 in the room of much more that might be said the Text readeth it thus If I then your Lord and Master have washed your feet ye ought also to wash one anothers feet for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done unto you From whence we may see this is an Ordinance of Christ and therefore I shall not deny it before men for I am not ashamed of the meanest of the waies or Ordinances of the Gospel because I know it is the power and wisdom of God God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise and the weak things and the base and despised things hath
knew that they were not flinchers to run away for then they might have run away before for the Prison doors were set wide open to them yet it is granted that the Jaylor was in a fear and did tremble but it was because he feared his Salvation and upon that account he came and fell down before Paul and Sylus saying Sirs what shall I do to be saved Love casteth out fear the Iaylor was not afraid to go to any water that was convenient to be Baptised and therefore doubtless if Paul had said that they must have gone many a mile to have been Baptized he would not have questioned the business for Conversion is of this nature whether you can witness it yea or nay that it is willing to do any thing in Gods service that God or his people doth teach without fear of ill conveniences and indeed love casteth out all such slaveth fear have you read in any place of Scripture that the Iaylor was afraid to go to a River with the Apostles if you have I pray shew it in your next writing if you can And whereas you say if they were plounged how came they to sit at meat presently with the Apostles Answer Doth the Text say that they sate presently at meat with the Apostles read the Text Act. 16.33 34 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes and was Baptised he and all his straight way and when he had brought them into his house he fel meat before them and rejoyced believing in God with all his house Here is no such thing said as you say that he sat presently at meat with the Apostles but admit it were so that he did sit presently at meat yet it was not so presently but they first made themselves ready I might ask you how the Eunuch did to sit wet in his Chariot Act. 8 38 39. after Philip had Baptised him for it is evident that both Philip and the Eunuch went down into the water and the Text faith That when they were come up out of the water mark that the Spirit caught away Philip and the Eunuch went on his way rejoicing But your discourse argueth that you are much besotted in your understanding and so I pass Again you say Circumclsion no tipe of Baptism neither cometh in the room and place of it Doctor Feath faith that Circumcision to Israel was as Baptism to us Answer you would have done well if you had shewed how he or you could prove it the which you have not in the least done and let me tell you that I do not beleeve that either D. Feath or you be infallable men but have your faillings in doctrine as well as in life and want not errours but that Circumcision to Israel is not as Baptism to us is evident First Circumcision was not so much as the least type of Baptism but rather is a type of Faith the which giveth right to Baptism that as the fore-skin of the flesh was to be taken of in order to the giving the subject right to Canaan a sleshly blessing so now the cutting off the fore skin of ignorance and unbelief from the heart giveth right to the Heavenly land of Canaan so that the Circumcision of the flesh was not as Baptism or a type of it but it was a type of the Circumcision of the heart according to the words of the Apostle Paul Rom 2.28 He is not a Jew which is one outwardly neither is that Circumcision which is outward in the flesh for that was then taken away and the other come in the room thereof but he is a law which is one outwardly and Circumcision that which is of the heart in the Spirit and not in the letter whose praise is not of men but of God Secondly Circumcision never required Faith in the dispensation of it the which Baptism doth see Act. 8.37 and that Faith is not required in Circumcision read my Dagons Down-fall Faith is required in Baptism or in the subject to be Baptised but not in the subject Circumcised which sheweth it and peradvanture more of it anon if it lay in my way and that Baptism did not come in the room and place of Circumcision is evident because that Circumcision was practised since Baptism for Baptism began in Iohns time and Christ was Baptised with several others and yet Circumcision was not taken away till Christs death by nailing it to his Cross and therefore they being both practised together one could not come in the room and place of the other For illustration take this comparison a Parsenage Barne cannot be built in the room or place of Sutten Church unless that first be pulled down and taken out of the way neither can Baptisme come in the room of Circumcision unless Circumcision be taken out of the way the which was not as I have already shewed And whereas you say That Circumcision was but in one part and so Baptism may be but in one part to which you cite the Hebrew word Tabhal from Iosh 3.15 in these words And the feet of the Priests that bare the Ark was dipped in the brim of the water To which I answer and say this maketh nothing for you for I do affirm that if a man put his finger into the brim of the water or his little toe they are dipped although it cannot be said the whole man is dipped but in Baptism I have proved that the whole man must be dipped which is the proper signification of the word Baptizo and also of the word Tabhal as you have cited it because it doth signifie not onely a death but a burial and Resurrection and therefore according to what you say both from the Hebrew and the Greek the true signification of the word is to dip onely here lyeth the question whether every part must be dipped or whether some one part will not serve now that which I say is that the whole man must be dipped or buried to sign fie Christs burial and Resurrection as aforesaid and if you can prove it may be done in part I pray shew it and also what part it is that ought to be Baptised that we may not be deceived because you have been a speaking of dipping and washing of feet but not of dipping or washing of the face Washing and sprinkling were distinct Ordinances in the time of the Law or more properly sprinkling which is your practice And whereas you would prove if ye could that the washing spoken of Hebrews 9 10 13 is the same that is called sprinkling in the 19. 21. To the which I say you are much mistaken for there was both washing and sprinkling in the time of the Law so that washing was an Ordinance distinct from sprinkling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither was sprinkling called washing therefore the sprinkling in the 19 and 22 verses is not the washing in the 10 and 13
flesh and the Father of the Spirits and when that which Adam begat which was dust even like himself Genes 3. did and shall return to dust then that which liveth or dwelleth in it returneuh to God the Father of Spirits who gave it but I pass to the next thing that which you say is David was conceived in sin and therefore there was Soul as well as body Answer And first you abuse the Text for it doth not read it as you have read it for it doth not say In sin was I conceived but I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me This far differeth one sense implyeth as if David lay the sin in the time of conception upon his mother in whom he was shapen in and your sense would imply thus much that is that David did acknowledge sin in himself in the time of conception but the Text it self will not emply it see it and read it distinctly Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me Psal 51.5 The Text is thus to be understood as if David should have said O Lord it is true I have sinned against thee and dâ—ne that which is evil in thy sight but take notice or consider or behold this one thing even of the frailty and weakness and imperfection of the mould that I was shapen in meaning her which is the mother of all living and so Davids mother and therefore Lord cast away my sins from before thee David doth not confess sin in himself in the time of conception but rather doth desire God to behold the weakness of his nature from the mould in the which he was shapen and consider my frame and remember that I am but dust agreeing with the words of the Psalmist in the 103. 11 12 13 14 in these words For as the Heaven is high above the earth so great is his mercy towards them that fear him as far as the East is from the West so far he removeth our transgressions from us like as a Father pitieth his children so the Lord pitieth them that fear him for he knoweth our frame he remembreth that we are dust So that David useth his mothers frailty and the imperfection of the mould in which he was shapen an Argument to prevaile with the Lord to have his sins removed out of his sight because he knew God was a God of righteousness weighing every thing as they are and considereth that we are but dust and therefore saith David that thou maiest in mercy pass by my faults that I have committed against thee remember my subjection unto sin for behold or take notice I was shapen in a lump of iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me take notice there is a difference in a person being sinful in the time of conception and being conceived a sinful lump or shapen in an imperfect mould But you will say Who can bring a clean thing out of unclean no not one Answer Object And where it is said who ean bring a clean thing out of unclean it speaketh of the subjection to mortality see Job 14.4 Jesus Christ was clean and yet was conceived in sinful flesh and in reference to what he was shapen or conceived in he was in a subjection not to be tempted onely but did fear death when he prayed that the cup of sufferings might pass from him if it was Gods Will although he came into the world for the same purpose and yet in respect of the matter of which Christs flesh was made of it could not be subject to the least imperfection in that nature it being the word which became flesh But my exposition of the 51 Psalm Will clear the matter more to you and by what is said there and here it standeth undenyably true and what you have said hath not so much as a good collour of an answer Again I pass to the Examination of what you say to my alledged Argument passing your other discourse that of Ezekiel which saith The Soul that sinneth shall die I have made a difference between Adams sin and ours as well as the punishment that is Adams sin as he was natural and not spiritual so his sin brought death upon the natural part but the son is not disabled in respect of the Soul by his Fathers sin but the Soul that sinneth shall die but the Argument that I did urge is this That no defiled creature is fit or can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven But children in their non-age are fit for the Kingdom of Heaven Therefore children not defiled To which you answer thus The Kingdom of Heaven say you is taken two wayes first the Kingdom of Heaven is taken for the Kingdom of Grace as Mark. 9.1 and Math. 11.12 There are some that stand here that shall not taste death till the Kingdom of God come in power till Christened Churches gathered Ordinances administred and children of beleeving Parents belong to this Kingdom though such as you barr them from the Ordinances of the Kingdom of Grace To which I answer and say in what you affirm there is these two things mainely to be considered the first is that the Kingdom mentioned Mark 9.1 in these words There be some that stand here that shall not taste of death till they have seen the Kingdom of God come with power is the Kingdom of Grace to wit the Gospel Church and Ordinances And secondly children are fit for that Kingdom as you say but the question is whether we may beleeve you or not but upon Examination I shall prove it to be a false doctrine And first to the first That the Kingdom coming in power is not meant of the Gospel Church or Ordinances but of the power and glory of the Church triumphant agreeing with or being the same with the words of Matthew Mat. 16.22 the which are thus read Verily Verily I say unto you there be some standing here which shall not taste if death till they sie the Son of man coming in his Kingdom Now that this is not a Gospel Church or Ordinances which is called the Kingdom of God coming in power or the Son of man coming in his Kingdom is evident because it is no where so called Secondly if he had meant the Gospel Church or Ordinances he need not have said Some of them that stand here shall not taste of death till the Kingdom of God come in power or more properly the Son of man coming in his Kingdom because none of them that stood there did taste of death till they saw the Gospel Church and Ordinances unless Judas Iscariot but I shall shew most evidently that it is not meant of the Gospel Church and Ordinances coming but of Christs coming in Glory But by the way it is possible you will say What then is not all the Apostles dead I might say somewhat to it but admit they were all dead many hundred years ago yet there was some that did
not taste of death till they saw Christ come in his Glory But that neither Mark or Matthew will carry it to the Gospel Church read that which goeth before the Text and that which followeth the Text you will finde the Text it self meaneth not the Gospel Church and Ordinances as you say see Mat 16.27 28. compared with chap. 17.1 2 3 4. compared with 1 Pet. 1.16 17 in these words For the Son of man shall come in the Glory of his Father with his Angels and then he shall reward every man according to his works Verily Verily I say unto you there be some standing here that shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom And after six dayes Jesus took Peter James and John his brother and bringeth them into a high mountain apart and was transfigured before them and his face did shine as the Sun and his Rayment was white as the light And behold there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him then answered Peter and said to Jesus Lord it is good for us to be here c. From whence we may see that it was not meant of a Gospel Church and Ordinauces coming in power and Glory when he speaketh of the Kingdom of God coming in power but the meaning ning of the place is that some of his disciples should see the manner of his coming in the Glory of his Father that you may see also more plainly manifested to be meant as before said of Christs Glory The Kingdom of God coming in power proved not to be the Gospel Church and Ordinances but to shew the manner of Christ coming in glory 〈◊〉 by transfiguration or the manner of Christs glorious coming in his Kingdom read 2 Pet. 1.11 comp with 16 17. verses In the 11 verse the Apostle exhorteth the Church to endeavour so to walk that an entrance might be administred unto them into the Everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ And that our Saviour hath such a glorious Kingdom as if Peter should say is very certain for as our Lord did say that some of us should not taste of death till We see him coming in his Kingdom he also did take us apart that we might see the glorious manner of his coming and Kingdom and this we are eye-witness for we have not followed cunning divised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ but were eye witnesses of his majesty for he received from God the Father honour and glory when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased and this voice we heard when we where with him in the Holy mount From whence we may plainly see if we compare the Scriptures together that Christ coming in glory or the Kingdom of God coming in power was not meant the Gospel Church and Ordinances for that is but in word and form but the transfiguration of Christ and the appearence of his Saints in glory with him is meant the Kingdom of God coming in power or the Son of man coming in his Kingdom thus hath the Scriptures overthrown clearly what you have said as touching the Kingdom of God coming in power and because you have inferred nothing from your Text Mat. 11.12 I shall pass saying nothing to it onely the Text in it self is true although it be not for your purpose but I commend you in that you gave no interpretation because to besure you have not abused it as you did the Text the which you did interpret And again whereas you say That children of beleeving Parents be fit for his Kingdom according to your interpretation viz. the Church To which I answer I have already proved that such are not fit members for a Gospel Church which are not lively stones Children proved not fit members of the Gospel Church although they be the children of the Faithful showing forth the praises of him that hath called them unto that state because there is to be none in Christs vine-yard viz. Church but such as are labourers the which a child of seven or eight dayes old cannot do and therefore not fit to be members of Christs Church But if the Gospel Church did onely look for a fair shâ—w in the flash as membership in the Church under the Law then children might either be Circumcised or have their bodies washed according to the carnal washings and so might be clean but membership in a Gospel Church is of another nature that requireth cleanness within the heart to be purified by Faith and the tongue speaking forth Gods praises for as with the heart man beleeveth to righteousness so as to fit them for a Gospel Church so with the tongue confession is made to Salvation Rom. 10. And whereas you repeat again of our barring children of Church priviledges I say as I have already said that it is your selves that barr children from Church priviledges for Baptism is not so properly called a Church priviledge as the Lords Supper the which you barr children from But you may see your self answered more fully as in my former Treatise But by what I have said here I have clearly took off your seeming answer to my Argument whereby it standeth undenyable that as to what you have said And again whereas you ask the question Whether children were vessels of mercy yea or no and you say you are sure that I will answer yes and then first say you they Were lost in Adam and in misery for merâ—y presupposeth misery and secondly then they must be fitted for glory therefore not naturally fit To which I answer that I have already shewed how the sons of Adam were lost and how not lost and therefore I shall wave this and come to shew how they are fitted for glory and that is the seed of the woman brake the Serpents head viz. Christ by or thorow the grace of God tasted death for every man and woman not onely to bring them to a Resurrection but he had an Heavenly inheritance to bestow on the sons of Adam which became his by purchess for he bought them when they were lost or sold by their iniquities But you will ask me Object They that are lost and die the second death are such as put away Eternal life and deny the Lord that bought them and will not have the Lord to rule over them but bid him depart and desire not the knowledge of his wayes If Christ died for to buy the whole world how cometh it to pass that the Whole world are not saved Answer There are some that put away Eternal life and tread under foot the blood of the Covenant wherewith they were sanctified but I know your old objection The blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified that is wherewith Christ was sanctified say you but if your eyes be in your head and open
before the time and we never read of any cast into that lake before the judgement day but I pass to the examination of what is said in way of contradiction the which is say you Sodom are new suffering the vengeance of eternal fire from Jude 7. your words are these Iude telleth us say you that Sodom and Gomorrah are suffering the vengeance of eternal fire that is now in misery now the former fire is out which destroyed their bodie Because I have not found you deal fairly with the Scriptures but have wrested them and said that which they say not I shall examine whether Jude 7. say as you say that Sodom and Gomorrah are suffering the vengeance of eternal fire and upon examination I do not find the word ARE in the Verse to that purpose for which ye bring it the Text doth not say they ARE suffering the vengeance of Eternal fire but the Text faith thus Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the Cities about them in like manner giving themselves over to Fornication and going after strange flesh are set forth for an example suffering the vengeance of eternal fire Now you may see the Text doth not say they ARE suffering of eternal fire but the strength of you reason why they ARE now suffering in Hell is because it faith they ARE 〈◊〉 forth for an example Sâ—V FFERING the vengeance of Eternal fire and because the Text faith Sâ—V FFERING the vengeance that therefore they are now Sâ—V FFERING and in order to a clear answer consider these few things First whether the word Sâ—V FFERING in Scripture may not respect 〈◊〉 the preterperfecttence and not the present 〈◊〉 some place And Secondly whether it was the suffering of the Sodomites in the destroying of their bodies by that fire and brimstone that God rained on them from Heaven be that which is called the example And Thirdly Where you can find any other suffering mentioned that the Sodomites were under save that suffering mentioned in Gen. 19. and Recorded for an example Iude 7. And first to clear this thing see the word SUFFERING in some places of scripture respecteth the Preterfecttence Heb. 2.9 and not the Presenttence James 5.10 for Christs death is said to be a suffering of death a long time after he was dead and alive again and glorified at the right hand of the Father The word suffering sometimes respects not the presenttence but the preterimperfecttence the Prophets are said to be set out for an example of SUFFERING and of pâ—tience long after their Sâ—V FFERING was over so that the word Sâ—V FFERING is of no strength for you to build your conceit on and the Text in Iude doth not say as you said that they ARE suffering that word you put in to help you but it will not cover you And Secondly that it was the sufferings of the Sodomites bodies by that fire that came down from Heaven is evident because Iude faith that they are set forth for an example now if it be meant of the suffering of the Soulin Hell as you say then I pray what example is it for unusuall judgements are alwayes used for examples but it is no unusuall thing for the souls of ungodly to suffer in Hell now or hereafter according to both our opinions but to see God rain down Fire and Brimstone to destroy a Nation or City that is not usual but a remarkable judgement and therefore set forth for an example and such was that of Sodoms SUFFERING And Thirdly You can never prove any other suffering that was inflicted on Sodom but that on their bodies the which if you can I shall wait on you to see it and so shall pass taking no notice of your Authors supposing that they may possibly be as ignorant as your self And whereas you say in your twentieth page that Jude tells us that they are now suffering I say you do not almost but altogether give the Scripture the lye for the Text doth not say that they ARE now suffering but you say that if the Devills now suffer in hell then it is also plain that Sodom suffereth in hell but you would prove one if you could and include the other that the Devil is not in torments is plain Why art thou come to torment us before the time peradventure you will say that they were not in the depth of torments but you will say they were in some the which I deny that they were in any torments onely cast out of Heaven First The Devil not in Hell viz. the lake which is the second death for then they could nor compass the earth and come before the Lord the which they did because if they had been in hell viz. the lake that they shall in future be put in then they could not have walked to and sâ—o in the earth nor appeared before God when the Sons of God met together for there is such a gulf that they that are there cannot come before God and when once they come there they shall not have their liberty to walk to and fro but shall be tormented day and night in the lake of Fire and Brimstone and as yet they are called the Prince of the aire and the god of this World but they shall be cast down into the earth and also bound a thousand years and afterwards loosed again before they be cast into that Lake and whereas Peter faith that they were cast down into hell and reserved unto the judgement of the great day I Answer Psal 16.10 Exod. 2.27 and 3.1 Jona 2.2 Isa 5.14 Hell in Scripture is taken several wayes sometimes for the Earth and sometimes for the Sea as Ionah cryed to the Lord out of the belly of Hell the which is meant the sea or the Whale take it which way you please and sometimes it is taken for captivity and whereas you cite the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hell is variously â—aken see Mat. 5.29 and ca. 10.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it may be read hill or valley or dale it will not so fully prove the matter as you seem to suppose because if we consider that high place that they did enjoy and the place in which they were cast that is to say without the gate it might fitly be called a deep place or hell and yet not be in that Lake which is the second death no they were reserved in chains to receive their torments at the great day of judgement that is their time as they well know and not before therefore they believe and tremble to consider of their day that is coming and again you conclude that children are guilty of the second death because that Iohn saw small and great stand before God to be judged a very poor reason are all that stand before God to be judged guilty of the second death then all the godly are guilty of the second death for we must all appear before the judgement seat to give an
account of all that which is done by us whether good or evill for he that hath improved his talent must come and stand before his Lord as well as he that hath not improved it to receive the sentence so that the small standing before God maketh not for you and again you say I deny that there is any yet in glory in the four and thirtieth Page of my Book Answer You do somewhat abuse me and my Book in saying I do deny any yet in glory Some Saints in glory as Enoch Elijah and Christ and possibly Moses and others although David be not yet ascended into Heaven I have not such an expression in the four and thirtieth page as I know of for I am perswaded that Enoch and Elijah and Christ and possibly Moses are at this time in glory although David be not yet ascended into Heaven the summ of what I say in the four and thirtieth page of my Treatise is That although the spirit of man returneth to God that gave it yet without the body is not in capacity or capable of joy this is my judgement or thoughts concerning man before the Resurrection that the Righteous go to sleep in peace and when they awake out of the dust of the Earth All the time of their sleep although they lye many years in the dust it will be but as it were a moment and also the wicked shall lye down in trouble and horror and their troubles will come fresh on them so soon as they awake out of the dust and their time will be also as a moment because there is no remembrance of time or any thing amongst the dead but if any be otherwise minded provided they hold fast the Foundations they may do well for this is nor so material for this we agree in that we shall all arie at the general Resurrection and shall come to judgement and then receive according to what we have done in the body whether it be good or evil and whereas you cite Christs words to the Thief on the Cross which is I say unto thee this day shalt thou be with me in Paradiâ—e To which I say that all that may be safely gathered from these words is that Christ gave him a promise of Paradice that day not that Christ and the Thief were to be both together in Heaven that same day for Christ dâ—d not ascend in many dayes after Although Christ said that day to the Thief that he should be with him in Paradice yet it doth not follow that Christ and the Thief were that day to be together in Paradice because he Thief not dead nor Christ ascended that day and it cannot be proved that the Malefactor was dead that day but as to these things I have spoken before both in private conference with you and also I have discovered it in publick and therefore at present shall insist on the next thing only say as to the Saints lying under the Altar Table if you please to resolve this question without doubt What the 〈…〉 is that cryeth for vengeance because the soul is variously taken in Scripture and because Abels blood is said to cry for vengeance and Christ poured out his Soul to death and made his Soul an offering for sin and we know that Christs blood is that which is the offering for sin for without it there were no remission of sins and might also ask you what the Altar Table is and mach more I could say to it but I pass to the next but by the way I cannot but take notice of your merry conceit where you say you could laugh tel me that if Sodom fire wire eternal it must be eternal as God is and then some Creature coeternal with the Creator or to last for ever and then Hell fire and is will becken to each other Although a Fools mouth be full of laughter you have no great cause to laugh at me for saying that the fire that the Sodomiter were destroyed withall was an eternal fire because that Iude faith It was the vengeance of eternal fire that they suffered and also if we consider that God ever was a consuming fire and his breath as a devouring flame and when Tophet is set on fire it shall be by the breath of the Lord. I could say very much as to both these particulars Psal 18.8 Isa 30.27 Dan. 7.10 Heb. 12.29 Psal 97.3 only I leave you to peruse the Scriptures in the margent and so I shall pass to what you say in answer of that of Is 24. of the Kings of the earth being punished on the earth which is say you some were purishedby Assirians and by Babylonians by Persians and Grecians and then hell is past and if this be meant hell how can they be rejected again say you To which I answer and first that this Chapter is a Prophecy of the destruction of the habitations of the earth and of the last Judgement is plain to him that hath his eyes in his head because the Prophet spake of the general Resurrection before he makes an end of his speech and we know order of words proveth nothing in many places and that the Prophet doth carry on his discourse to the state of the general Resurrection see Chapter 25.8 and also Paul speaking of the general Resurrection to the Corinthians Whereas the Prophet spake of punishing of the host of high ones and Kings on the earth and after speaâ—s of gathering them as prisoners into the plâ— is not another thing but the method of the punishment before-mentioned and order of word proves nothing referreth them to this Text saying As it is written Death is swallowed up in victory O death where is thy sting O grave where is thy victory and whereas you by order of word would prove a visitation after their punishments to be the Gospel in respect of whose glory the Sun and Moon are dim To which I say there is not so much as a colour of truth in it as I conceive and whereas the Text speaketh of gathering them as prisoners into a pit and after many dayes to visit them After he hath spoak of punishing them on the earth therefore you conclude that the visitation is after the punishment To which I answer and say it is no such thing for first he speaks of punishing of them and the place where and then the manner how he will punish them First punish them he will to wit the hoast of high ones that are on high although happily they may think they are too high or out of the wrath of punishment and the Kings of the earth who have lived there in pleasure shall there be punished and as he saith he will punish them and where he will punish them so he sheweth the method of their punishment that is they shall be gathered as prisoners into the pit and then after wards shall be visited that is the Lord will visit them with a due recompence of
secret will never intends they should do as first he commanded Pharoah to let Israel go and secondly commanded Abraham to offer up Isaac and did not intend they should do it Answer And to the first that is God did command Pharaoh to let Israel go and yet did not intend he should let them go To which I say God did intend that Pharoah should let them go although God knew that Pharoah at the first would not let them go but Gods fore knowledge that men will do evill is not the cause that they do evil God knew that Cain would stay Abel yet he was not the cause of his so doing But you will say that God hardened Pharoahs heart Answ So he might justly do as I shall shew the cause in the exposition of the Ninth of the Romans if the Lord please but that is not our question but our question is Whether God did intend Pharoah should let Israel go we argue noâ— the case whether he should have let them go-sooner or later but singly thus whether Pharoah should let Israel go the which I do affiâ—me that God did intend that Pharaoh should let Israel go and the Lord said that he knew that he would let them go although not at the first as you may see Exod. 3.19 20. and if Pharoah had let them go at the first be had not sinned in so doing yet it pleased God to shew to Moses that he would harden his heart bee use he had hardened himself against him so that Israel must not expect to go presently and yet the Lord sheweth Moses that he would so weary him with his signes that he would make him willing to let Israel go at the last these two things observe First That God intended when he had tryed Pharoah by his signes that he should let Israel go God did not harden Pharoahs heart on purpose to keep Israel from going but because Pharoah had slited the Lord in saying who is the Lord I will not obey his voice and let you go that therefore the Lord did harden Pharoah when first Pharoah had hardened The Scripture saith that Pharoah hardened his heart against the Lord. himself that he might know that the Lord was stronger than he I might spend much time in running thorow the causes of things but of that anon And Secondly take notice this was not Gods secret will namely in appointing Pharoah not to let Israel go when he had commanded him to let them go but it was his revealed will made known to Mosis and Aaron and in the next place I come to examine the matter as touching Gods commanding of Abrahams offering up Isaac and so shall pâ—ss from this particular to the second Argument I shall be very brief saying that in a sense as beforesaid Abraham did offer up Isaac and also this is not a secret thing because the Scripture saith it was but to try Abraham as I have before proved therefore I pass to the third Argument the second you grant to be true And the third is If Adam in his best condition as he stood in Paradice before the fall were but an earthly Adam In his best estate was but an earthly man man and all his enjoyments earthly then he could loose no more then what he had to loose which was but earthly but Adam in his best condition was and enjoyed but as beforesaid Ergo all that he lost was but earthly enjoyments Your answer seems very weak in my opinion which is say you All sinned in Adam to condemnation or damnation and hence Insants by nature are children of wrath or otherwise say you what is meant by the Hebrew Text in dying thou shalt dye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the which is guilt or cause of punishment or judgment the which may be taken for the first or second death as the Scripture offereth it unto us ndifferently To which I answer and first to the first which is All sinned in Adam say you to condemnation it is very true that for Adams sin all men were condemned for saith God Dust thou art and to dust thou shall return meaning not only Adam but all his Lines and therefore it is appointed once for men to dye for we must needs dye and be like water spilt upon the ground and as I have said the word condemnation will not help you because there is the very same in Luke 23.40 and yet it is only a temporal death and so I am come to the next thing which is That Infants say you are children of wrath by nature If you mean they are children of wrath as in respect to outward punishment we differ not because Gods Justice must be satisfied for God thereupon to inflict it if he sinned but he did sin therefore it must of necessity be punished otherwise Justice not satisfied because there was no Repentance given or required as in reference to that sin but if you suppose that Infants be children of wrath as in respect of punishment to the second Death we much differ and I will give you seven years time to prove it in which time prove it if you can And whereas you ask me what is meant by the Hebrew word in dying thou shalt dye I answer as beforesaid that so soon as Adam had eaten he was in a dying condition and so are all men dying untill they be dead so that in the midst of life we are in death continuing not in one stay and so I come to examime what you say to my fifth Argument which is That opinion which in the extent of it will make the Devil to speak true and God to lye is anabsurd blasphemous opinion but such is the opinion that saith that the Death that God threatned to Adam was the second Death and yet that second Death not inflicted for that sin on Adam and all his Lines so he saith God speaketh falsely and the Devil truth Ergo that opinion an obhor'd blasphemous opinion but the minor is false as you say for say you Although God threatned Adam with eternal death yet he lyed not in inflicting it because his threatens was to dehort Adam from sin not his peremptory resolution but as to Hezekiah and Niniveh To which I answer you have said nothing at all to prove my minor false for as I have said that God did say that if Adam did eat he should dye and that eternally say you but the Devill said that he should not dye viz eternally but Adam did eat now if Adam and his Lines did nor so dye aâ— God said they should viz eternally as you say then who it was that spake true God or the Devill I leave the Reader to judge God said they should dye but the Devil said they should not surely dye All men did dye the first death or shall be changed which is as death as God did say and so its plain that